The scheme was to buy a toy 9-millimeter Glock, the service weapon carried by the FBI. They make great fakes, don't they? Don't people rob banks every day with toy guns?It was a beautiful night, so I walked down Broadway, from the upper 70s to the superstore Toys R Us on 42nd Street. When I asked the uniformed toy concierge where the guns were, she looked astounded, as if she hadn't heard that question in 20 years."You can't buy a toy gun in the boroughs of New York," she said, then added: "You could go to New Jersey."

Now, I have to say this. I am just sick and tired of New Yorkers saying disparaging things about New Jersey. Who do they think they are? Don't they realize New Jersey ranks even higher than they do on the sensible-gun-laws scale?

Instead of going to Jersey to buy a toy gun, which probably wouldn't have been all that easy, she came up with a good solution right there in NYC. Companies exist which supply prop guns for the theater.

So the following morning, after a feverish search on the Internet, I discovered the Centre Firearms Co. They stocked prop Glocks, but as I learned, you can't just walk in and rent one. The Administrative Code is so airtight that you need a letter of intent stating exactly what you plan to use the prop for.This meant a letter from my publisher, followed by a dash to an address in the west 30s that turned out to be the Empire State Building. After stumbling through lobbies and doorways, I found a horrifying freight elevator that took me to an office with a massive steel door, where I was buzzed into a long, shadowy room filled with racks of dusty weapons. Rifles, muskets, M-16s. Beyond it lay another chamber, half-dark, filled with more. A depressed-looking man stood behind the counter.He scrutinized the letter and filled out an elaborate form, warning that I must keep it with me when carrying the gun, in case I was stopped. Stopped? At a police roadblock. Or a metal detector. He offered me two choices of weapon: a prop cut out of a block of wood for $35 a week or an actual Glock (disabled for firing) that cost $10 more. You could not tell the difference, so I took the block of wood.

What's your opinion? Are all these ridiculous laws doing any good? Well, what do you think? Did you ever hear of anyone committing a robbery with a toy gun? Do you think that happens more often in New York or places where you can buy toy guns easily? Did you ever hear of the police shooting a kid who was holding a toy gun? Do you think that happens more often in New York or in places where you can buy those toys easily?

CBS affiliate, WRGB reports on the Pine Plains Middle School, attempting to return to normal after the hostage incident which took place the other day.

On Thursday the bucolic main street in Pine Plains,60 miles south of Albany,was a far cry from the frenzy that took over this northern Dutchess County town on Tuesday when anguished parents filled the streets wondering if their children were safe from a man who used a shotgun to take the middle school principal hostage.It was a story that garnered national news coverage and focused an ugly spotlight on Pine Plains.

I don't know if it's such an "ugly spotlight." What do you think? Isn't this the kind of thing that can happen anywhere? Or can it?

A gun-buyback program has turned into a local version of "cash for clunkers."

Newark police say the 280 guns turned in Wednesday and yesterday, the first two days, have temporarily drained the program's $50,000. Anyone who turned in a gun at Emanuel Christian Church was given $200.

A similar program in 2005 yielded 400 guns over four months, said Sgt. Ronald Glover, Police Department spokesman.

Four other churches were scheduled to host two-day gun buybacks in coming weeks, but Glover said more money would have to be found first.

As one of our favorite commenters often says, "words matter." I think he's actually used those words about this very expression, "gun buy-back," rightly pointing out that it couldn't be a "buy-back" unless the gun owners had bought the guns from the city in the first place.

But, that aside, is this type of program really as worthless as its critics say? Isn't it possible that among the predominately "clunker" type guns, there are some good ones which might otherwise be used in crime? Isn't it a small amount of money invested if even a few guns are taken off the streets? Isn't a drop in the bucket better than nothing?

On Tuesday, 39 year old Robert Beiser shot and killed his wife Teresa at her work at Legacy Metro Lab in Tualatin, before entering a bathroom and shooting and killing himself. Teresa had recently filed for divorce from her husband.Wednesday Mukesh Suthar apparently shot his wife Varsha and son Ronak before taking his own life. Authorities have not finalized their investigation, but initial indications are this was also a murder/suicide. He had been depressed and was facing some financial stress, but friends have stated this was sudden and unexpected.

The author goes on to ask all the usual questions, why do people do this, what could possibly go through their minds. She describes very well the dilemma faced by friends and family when someone is acting strangely - should they intervene or not? Finally she comes up with the solution.

What we can do is pray for our friends and families, reach out to them if we see something unusual, and let our neighbors know we care. These are difficult times we live in, with financial crises at every level of income, and contentious political discussions that have thus far failed to resolve anything. We must remember that first and foremost, we are people, with feelings and emotions, problems and ideas, and that only together can we overcome whatever we face.

Now, I may be mistaken, but this sure sounds like that la-di-da, touchy-feely approach liberals are often accused of. In order to reduce the mass murder we need to what, "remember that first and foremost, we are people, with feelings and emotions?"

Is the fact that no mention was made of gun availability an indication that Ms. Bodner doesn't think guns are the problem. She didn't mention that the two examples cited were both men killing their wives either. I suppose she wouldn't go in for my idea about guns being bad news for women then. But, her idea that "only together can we overcome whatever we face" seems sadly inadequate.

What we need is background checks on every transfer, gun registration and gun-owner licensing. Of course, in order to do that we need politicians who can stand up to the gun lobby, perhaps Obama will do that if he makes it to a second term. Through these means, we can significantly reduce the availability of guns to the bad guys.

What's your opinion? Is it actually the gun owners who are into all this "feeling" business? Does it turn out that the gun control advocates are the ones suggesting concrete solutions while their opposition is talking about "feelings and emotions?"

A binational task force on U.S - Mexico border issues will call Friday on the Obama administration and Congress to reinstate an expired ban on assault weapons and for Mexico to overhaul its frontier police and customs agencies to mirror the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The recommendations are among a broad set of security, trade, development and environmental proposals that come as President Obama and his Mexicans counterpart, Felipe Calderón, move to deepen engagement on issues including economic recovery, climate change, illegal immigration and narcotics trafficking.

Now there's a shocker. There's more to it than guns. These folks are actually interested in immigration, climate change and economic recovery. I thought it was all about the guns.

Mexican officials want a ban, saying that 90 percent of guns seized in drug crimes in Mexico and submitted for tracing to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives originate in the United States, including most assault rifles.

Is anyone still complaining about this? I've noticed in the recent reports, everyone is careful to include the key phrase, "submitted for tracing," or something like it. Is that good enough? Or do you think it's still an attempt to mislead?

Is this very different from that video Sebastian posted the other day in which the speaker said "every single gun transfer requires a background check?" In that case he didn't even qualify it with a parenthetical phrase, we had to understand he was talking about sales from licensed dealers and not including private transactions in his remark. I actually found that quite misleading, but it was my mistake as pointed out by Mr. S.

The problem remains however about how to define "assault weapon." My pro-gun friends have convinced me it's not possible. Why do these politicians persist?

The article pointed out another thing that is sometimes overlooked in these discussions of Mexico. In that country they have strict gun control. When that is mentioned it's usually an attempt to prove that gun laws don't work. But, I say it proves just the opposite. Like Chicago and New York City, the fact that Mexico has strict gun control laws means the folks who want guns have to bring them in from outside. That's why people blame the U.S. for Mexico's gun problem. That's why people blame the "iron pipeline" through which flows a continuous supply of guns to Chicago and New York for their gun problems. Does that make sense?

The solution is obvious. Something needs to be done at the source of these guns.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Doug Pennington wrote a wonderful article for the Brady Blog in the aftermath of the Ft. Hood tragedy. He describes how Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone defended the military policy of not allowing weapons on base except for the MPs and designated security people. Then he quotes the pro-gun response, as expressed by Jacob Sullum of Reason.

…If someone else at the processing center had a gun when Hasan started shooting, it seems likely that fewer people would have been killed or injured….

I've heard this argument so many times I can't count them. I think it's a good one, actually. My only problem with it is although it may work out that way in some cases, overall it would do more harm than good. The Brady article explains that very clearly.

The shooter was issued a Virginia concealed carry permit in 1996. (See his permit application here. ) This means, according to people like Jacob Sullum and John Lott/”Mary Rosh,” the alleged Fort Hood murderer was, by definition, a “law-abiding citizen”… right up to the point he massacred 13 people and wounded another 30. This also means that Sullum’s “more guns” policy would help put guns in the next “law-abiding” mass murderer’s hands, and make it legal for him to carry them virtually anywhere he chooses.

What's your opinion? Are you concerned with the fact that the more armed people we have in the country, the more armed unstable people we'll have? The reasons for this are several, which I covered in my 10% post.

All these warning signs. All these holes in the ability of law enforcement to do their job, shot through by lobbying from the NRA.

The ease with which America’s weak gun laws permitted a deranged killer to arm himself and massacre so many of our servicemen and -women should be a national tragedy.

Yet the only answer Sullum can manage is the “breathtaking inanity” to play the gun lobby’s broken record of “more guns… more guns…more guns….”

Of course, his conclusion can only follow from an equally inane assumption that mass shootings beset us like natural disasters, as if nothing can be done to prevent them.

What's your opinion? Do you think these incidents are as inevitable as natural disasters? Do you think it's about the people and not about the guns therefore we should keep moving towards more and more guns? As I asked above, wouldn't you be concerned with the fact that the more armed people we have in the country, the more armed and unstable people we'll have?

One idea that occurs to me is that the gun owners actually agree with the gun control folks about this, about the fact that the more guns there are the more gun trouble the will be. The reason they refuse to admit it is because otherwise they would look incredibly self-centered. They want their guns and that's that. They don't care about the cost.

This would be especially true of the architects of these policies, the NRA spokespeople, for example. Among the regular gun owners, I suppose there are those who actually believe this stuff, but I don't suppose they're too numerous.

While opinione is not trying to make the shooter out to be a victim, just like other members of the academic community like Alfred McCoy, Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevich and other members of the anti Imperialist School who are also retired members of the military,(like Opinione) the shooting at Fort Hood is another example of how the perpetual war and embrace of letting an All Volunteer Force be exploited while no other Americans are not asked to sacrifice anything, is taking its toll on the military and coming home to American Home Front.

What do you think about that? Is an all-volunteer military bad for the country? Does that have something to do with what's going wrong? From Tomdispatch we have this:

Even before Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on his killing spree, that base, a major military embarkation point for our war zones, was already experiencing the after-effects of eight years of war and repeated tours of duty. The suicide rate at Fort Hood was soaring (with 10 on the base in 2009 alone). Divorce rates were on the rise, as were mental health problems, drug and alcohol use, domestic abuse (up 75% since 2001), and murders among war-zone returnees. Even violent crime in Killeen, the town that houses the base, was up 22% (though it was down, according to the New York Times, "in towns of similar size in other parts of the country").

They're all worthy of discussion, but I thought these two were of particular interest.

5. If you are walking down a sidewalk and are approaching a group of loud and apparently intoxicated males, cross to the other side of the street immediately. If anyone tries to start a fight with you, the first step should be “choke them with heel dust”.

10. If anyone tries to force you into your car or car trunk at gun point, don’t cooperate. Fight and scream all you can even if you risk getting shot in the parking lot. If you get in the car, you will most likely die (or worse).

What's your opinion? Do some of them seem overly cautious? Is it difficult to reconcile number 5 with number 10?

A 19-year-old was killed Thursday evening after a man in a car shot him with an assault rifle, Miami police said.

The incident took place about 5 p.m. in the 200 block of Northwest 56th Street, police said. Dominique Jackson was seen talking to a person inside a black car, who then pulled out an assault rifle and shot him.

The victim was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital, where he died.

Police interviewed residents who live in apartment complexes in the neighborhood, but had not determined who shot the man or why.

How do they know it was an assault rifle? Can they tell by the wound or by examining the bullet?

Do you think the Miami Police know what they're talking about when they use the term "assault rifle?"

While the state’s top attorney says it is legal for residents to carry unconcealed firearms in public, Milwaukee authorities say they won’t stand for it.

“My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it,” Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said.

“Maybe I’ll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I’ve got serious offenders with access to handguns. It’s irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them.”

"A protest of cowboys," did you get that? Mike W. referred to the police chief as a "thug." Both seem to be fairly extreme reactions. I would ask, what's a police chief in, for example, Detroit, supposed to do? Isn't his point reasonable that you can't tell the bad guys they can avoid harassment by simply displaying their guns openly and acting normal. This would present a problem for law enforcement, would it not?

What's your opinion? Is this another opportunity for gun owners to demonstrate a little common sense and not push the envelope to the point that it becomes detrimental to the cause.

UPI reports on the Somerville New Jersey man who won his case to be allowed to bear arms even though he cannot do so with his own limbs.

A wheelchair-bound, quadriplegic New Jersey man who waged a 2-1/2-year battle to buy a gun has the right to a firearm permit, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Superior Court Judge John Pursel of Somerville, N.J., ruled Wednesday that James Cap, who is physically unable to hold a gun or pull a trigger with his limbs, should be allowed to have a firearm ID card despite the opposition of a local police chief, The (Newark, N.J.) Star-Ledger reported.

"I hope you enjoy the use of your firearm," Pursel told Cap, an avid hunter, before signing an order allowing him to get a permit under the conditions that any guns he buys be stored in a safe and that only qualified people assist him with the weapons.

The newspaper said Cap, 46, puts his firearm in a special wheelchair mount and uses a mechanical device that allows him to aim and fire with breaths through a tube.

He sued the city of Manville, N.J. after its police chief, Mark Peltack, rejected his application. His victory was hailed by the National Rifle Association, which had objected to the chief's denial.

What do you think about this fascinating case? It touches on the very meaning of the 2nd Amendment, doesn't it? The idea that the bearing of arms is only for participation in the militia, certainly doesn't apply. Nor does the individual right to self protection. So, how does this man benefit from the 2nd Amendment exactly? Does it also cover the idea that he just wants to? Is wanting to have a gun enough reason to be entitled to have one,, according to the Constitution?

The Fairfield County Weekly reports on the failed attempts in Connecticut to trace firearms used in crime. Connecticut's Statewide Firearms Trafficking Task Force which was created to deal with this has become another victim of Connecticut's budget crisis.

The task force was formed in 2000 in response to surging gun violence. Three years later, its funding was chopped as state officials struggled to deal with an earlier fiscal fiasco. In 2007, another wave of urban shootings convinced lawmakers to restore the money. And now it's gone again, even though the gunfire continues to echo through Connecticut's cities. But state Public Safety Commissioner John A. Danaher III doesn't think the loss of the task force is anything to fret about.

"It was a tool for a problem that doesn't exist in that way anymore," Danaher said in a recent interview. "You just don't have organized firearms trafficking going on."

Others disagree.

Danaher's statements came as a shock to West Hartford Police Chief James J. Strillacci, a former president of the Connecticut Chiefs of Police Association.

Here are some interesting statistics from the Task Force's earlier efforts.

According to the ATF, there were 1,563 guns seized and traced in Connecticut last year. Of the 779 where a state of origin could be identified, 478 came from this state. Florida led the list of outside states of origin with 34, followed by Virginia with 31 and Pennsylvania with 23.

Doesn't that sound like those reports which proved that OF THE MEXICAN GUNS TRACED, 90% came from the U.S.? In this case though, it sounds like a legitimate statistic proving that most of the guns used in crime in Connecticut come from Connecticut.

What do you make of that? Since they start out as legal property of some licensed gun dealer somewhere in the state, and presumably pass from him to another legal owner who passed the background check, how do they get into the criminal world? I'll tell you how. At some point, some legal honest upstanding citizen who owns the gun sells or gives it to a criminal. Of course that makes him a criminal, but like so many, he hasn't been caught yet and is masquerading as a good guy.

COLUMBIA -- A federal judge today ordered the state to stop producing "I Believe" license plates, ruling the case is a "textbook example" of a constitutional prohibition of government endorsing a specific religion.

U.S. District Court Judge Cameron Currie, who issued a preliminary injunction against the plates in December, on Tuesday issued a permanent injunction, finding the legislation creating the plates violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and its 14th Amendment.

"Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same," Currie wrote in her order. "The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation."

A 63-year-old Vietnam War veteran in Vail, Colo., shot four people at a local bar, killing one, police allege.

The Denver Post said Monday that Richard "Rossi" Moreau is accused of fatally shooting Gary Bruce Kitching, 70, last weekend and injuring three others during a shooting at the Sandbar Sports Grill in Vail.

Witness Chester Noel alleges Moreau drew a gun and began firing Saturday night when bar manager Jason Barber attempted to remove him from the bar.

"The bouncer said, 'Put the gun away,' then I saw flame shooting out in front of my face," alleges Noel, who said Barber, 29, was among those injured in the incident.

Police have not released the identities of those hurt in Saturday's shooting. Two of the gunshot victims, identified only as a 29-year-old and a 63-year-old, were still hospitalized as of Monday.

Vail Police Chief Dwight Henninger told the Post that Moreau had previously faced weapon charges and an unspecified number of weapons were found in his apartment following the shooting.

Wait, don't say it, I know the answer. He was already a criminal and no law could have prevented this. That's the pro-gun argument, isn't it?

What I say is it's too easy for guys like Mr. Moreau to get guns. Posting a sign at the bar entrance forbidding firearms or passing a state law banning guns in bars is not enough. The source of his guns needs to be dealt with. That's where gun control laws can and should make a difference.

Police officers from seven states are in Fargo-Moorhead this week, learning new tactics to respond to school shootings. Traditionally, officers wait for a SWAT team before entering the building. The new tactic calls for school resource officers to respond immediately, without backup.

That's the whole story right there, respond without waiting for backup. What do you think? Did they need a special training for something like that? Wouldn't any officer of the law naturally want to do just that?

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Laci the Dog published a wonderful piece on the Ft. Hood shooting. For any faint-hearted pro-gun folks who have been offended by Laci's satire, I can assure you there's nothing here but straight up analysis. And I really like what I read.

This for example:

First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:

"necessary to the security of a free State"

And this:

Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.

And especially this:

It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.

What's your opinion? Does Laci make some good points? Please leave a comment.

Illinois State Police say a suspect has been arrested in a weekend East St. Louis shooting that killed three women as they sat in a car with kids who managed to escape unharmed.

Illinois State Police Lt. James Morrisey says police in nearby St. Louis arrested the suspect Sunday at an apartment. His name was not released because no charges had been filed in Saturday's deadly shooting.

Morrisey says the women were in a car with at least two children at a gas station Saturday night when the suspect drove up, exchanged words with one of the women and opened fire.

Canikia Harvey and Raykel Gathing, both 26, and 24-year-old Jaimaca McDaniel died later at a hospital.

Morrisey says the suspect knew one of the women.

The pro-gun response to this is more women should be armed in order to better protect themselves. The gun control response is fewer criminals should have access to guns. Which idea do you support and how do you propose implementing it?

A central Florida television station reports that a man accused of fatally shooting his wife inside their mansion attended the woman's memorial service this weekend.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, a judge had granted Bob Ward's request to attend services for his wife, Diane, in Brevard County. WFTV-TV reported that Ward was spotted at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Viera this weekend.

The couple lived in Isleworth, one of Florida's most expensive and prestigious neighborhoods. The secluded community in an Orlando suburb is home to hundreds of mansions and dozens of celebrities.

According to an arrest affidavit, Ward told dispatchers he shot his wife. He faces a second-degree murder charge.

Do you think if he'd been an impoverished black or Hispanic man he'd have been able to attend the funeral?

A 32-year-old investigator, a rising star in the federal public defender's office, was accidentally shot and killed Saturday by her father while they were cleaning guns together.

Melissa Kupferberg spent the morning shooting pistols at a local range with her father, who was visiting from Maryland. They returned to her Seminole Heights home and began to clean the weapons.

But Kupferberg was having difficulty disassembling one of the pistols, Tampa police said. So she handed off a Glock Model 34 to her father, Stephen P. Kupferberg, 65.

Glock pistols require the trigger to be depressed to be cleaned. And as Stephen Kupferberg tried to tear down the pistol in his daughter's home around noon on Saturday, something went wrong.

A single shot was fired, striking Melissa in the upper body.

In spite of what kaveman seems to be implying, I fully realize that guns aren't bad news for women every single time. But, can anyone deny that there is too much gun violence being done to women by men. The examples above are taken from current news stories, typical of the daily fare reported by the main stream. Occasionally we have a female heroine like Officer Munley, no one's denying that.

Virginia voters favor the death penalty by a better than 2 to 1 margin, with 66 percent supportive of it, 31 percent opposed. And intensity on this issue is with the supporters: 45 percent "strongly" back capital punishment, 18 percent are that solidly opposed.

That's an interesting statistic. In Northern VA, only 56% favor the death penalty compared to 71% in the rest of the state. What do you think could account for that difference? Could it be education? The northern residents must include many educated people who work in Washington D.C. whereas much of the rest of the state is rural. Is that it? What's your opinion?

What about Mr. Muhammad? They said he was delusional and suffered from amnesia during the trial. Should that have been considered to mitigate his guilt? Could a delusional person have done what he did?

The Sydney Morning Herald published an article in the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting which beautifully encapsulates the gun violence situation in America, as seen from Australia. After producing a dozen or so examples of recent shootings, the author Bernard Lagan says this.

I could go on, of course. Another week of guns and blood across America and before a public and polity so astonishingly impervious to the carnage that it is treated almost as if it were measles.

On average, guns kill or wound 276 people every day in America. Of those shot, about 75 adults and nine children die. That adds up to just over 100,000 victims of gun violence a year. The rate of firearm murders in the United States is about 16 times that in Australia and 26 times that in Britain.

It's difficult to deny that we've become inured to this level of violence. I think many, on both sides of the argument feel it's hopeless, that nothing could possibly change it. How often have we heard, "the genie is out of the bottle?" But, is that true?

Martin Bryant was the Tasmanian misfit who, on an April afternoon in 1996, used two military-style assault rifles to take the lives of 35 people in eight, dreadful minutes.

To his lasting credit, the then newly elected prime minister, John Howard, seized the moment and stared down the gun lobby to give Australia one of the tightest sets of gun ownership laws in the world. He declared at the time: ''I hate guns. One of the things I don't admire about America is their slavish love of guns ... We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."

Australia endured 11 mass shootings in the decade leading to the day Bryant ran amok. There have been none since.

The article goes on to describe the difficulty something like this would present in the U.S., given what he calls "the red-necked rage of the National Rifle Association." When asked about the promised gun law reform, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said there isn't support in Congress at this time.

What's your opinion? Is it possible that gun law reform is only being prevented by the lobbying efforts of the NRA and gun manufacturers? If it weren't for those efforts, isn't it conceivable that America could enjoy the improvement that Australia's had over these last decades?

Sixteen American soldiers killed themselves in October in the U.S. and on duty overseas, an unusually high monthly toll that is fueling concerns about the mental health of the nation's military personnel after more than eight years of continuous warfare.

The Army's top generals worry that surging tens of thousands more troops into Afghanistan could increase the strain felt by many military personnel after years of repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The October suicide figures mean that at least 134 active-duty soldiers have taken their own lives so far this year, putting the Army on pace to break last year's record of 140 active-duty suicides. The number of Army suicides has risen 37% since 2006, and last year, the suicide rate surpassed that of the U.S. population for the first time.

We discussed this last May when the 2008 numbers came out. Things are getting worse. What's your opinion? Is the reason for the increasing problem of suicide among young soldiers all due to the continuing strain of two wars? How do you think the fact that we have an all-volunteer army affects this? Would it be worse if some of them were drafted?

What do you think about the disarming of military personnel on stateside bases? In our recent discussions about that, it seems the pro-gun crowd is critical of the practice. Do you think they've thought of the implications on suicide rates? Some of them have and proffer that the availability of guns has no impact on suicide.

I say the availability of guns is the single most important factor in suicide rates for the simple reason that using a gun is so much more effective than any of the other means.

Police in Berks County are investigating a shooting that left a person dead and wounded six others.Reading police said officers were called to an illegal speakeasy in the 500 block of Schuylkill Avenue just before 3:30 a.m. Sunday for a report of shots fired and several people running from the scene.

When officers arrived, they found one man lying on the floor shot to death. Five others were taken by private vehicles to Reading Hospital with gunshot wounds and another person showed up at St. Joseph's Hospital, police said.

Did they call this place "an illegal speakeasy?" I thought they went out with the roaring twenties. What do you suppose it is an after-hours club or something like that?

I've been to Reading PA. It didn't seem anything like Newark or Camden, at least the section I visited. What do you think could have been behind a shooting like this? Has the gun culture become such a part of American life that we no longer find shock and surprise in these reports? Is your solution to continually arm more people based on that tired old argument that armed victims would put the shooter out of action before he does so much damage?

Here’s the deal: If you like drinking coffee, and some special interest group suddenly begins howling that coffee is a national health hazard, and it could save taxpayers $100 Billion per year if coffee were outlawed, you sort of have a decision to make:

“Is my passion for coffee worth fighting for? Or do I go with the flow.”

The fact of the matter is that guns are controversial… And if you’ve carried concealed for any amount of time, you already know that it really becomes a defining part of your lifestyle.

That's a nice analogy, in fact I think it accidentally touches on something I often say. Gun owners usually place themselves under the protection of the Constitution or the Bible or the inarguable rationale that they must protect their families from ever-present danger. All those things may be true in the mind of gun owners, debatable as they are, but the real reason is simply because they like guns.

I have yet to hear one pro-gun argument start and finish at the point that they just like guns, they like the lifestyle, the image, the feeling of power, the feeling of safety. Using the example above, if you like something like coffee, you naturally don't want someone telling you you can't have it. From there you might argue about Constitutional rights and other reasons why you want access to the thing desired. But you start and finish with the simple idea that you like it.

It seems to me that mention of this in the article was accidental. Surely the Ammoland people and the USCCA make all the standard arguments for gun rights.

Another interesting thing I noticed in this quote is that the gun control movement is compared to "some special interest group." To me that sounds like a bit of a spin. The gun control movement and the anti gun violence groups are a bit more than that, don't you think?

The man accused of killing one person and wounding five others in a shooting at an Orlando office where he once worked made his first appearance in court Saturday, and was ordered held without bond.

Jason Rodriguez, 40, said little more than his name during the two-minute proceeding.

Judge Walter Komanski said the court found probable cause and factual basis for Rodriguez' arrest and said he would be held without bond on a first-degree murder charge.

Now, I realize I'm often seen as soft on criminals, but when someone does something so crazy and is immediately charged with First Degree Murder, I wonder if it's right.

According to the charging affidavit, the fatality occurred when Rodriguez entered the suite, pulled a handgun from a holster under his shirt and shot twice at an employee who was standing near the receptionist's desk.

He then entered a common work area "firing multiple rounds and causing injuries to several other employees," it says, citing a witness.

To me that sounds extremely crazy. Is someone who does that not the very description of "temporarily insane?"

During the frightening episode several employees recognized him from two years earlier. When he was taken into custody he said, "I'm just going through a tough time right now, I'm sorry."

What's your opinion? Do you think we might be a little too quick to hold mentally ill people accountable for their crimes? Could that be part of the reason our prisons are so overcrowded?

I say a guy like this, and many others, should go straight to the mental hospital. What's your opinion?

By the way, did you notice he pulled the "handgun from a holster under his shirt." What does that sound like to you?

MSNBC provided a video of Hulk Hogan promoting his new book in which he talks about a near suicide attempt. In his usual eloquent fashion, Hulk describes the divorce after 23 years of marriage and his son's accident for which the boy went to jail for almost killing his passenger, as the major factors which brought him to he point of contemplating suicide with a gun in hand.

The interview reminded me of recent comments by AztecRed. To my several overtures that a suicide attempt is often a mistaken responses to temporary problems and not the true desire of a sound mind, AztecRed had this to say.

It matters not whether they have access to guns or not. If someone really wants to kill themselves, they'll do it.

Of course, the other part of my remarks is that people like this should not have guns. Fortunately Hulk Hogen survived.